in truth and infact that the Payment Instructions when

People of the Philippines vs Uy s i g n e d b y t h e N A P O C O R authorities did not indicate

G.R. No. 157399 November 17, 2005 theaccount number of Raul Gutierrez, thereby making
Facts: alteration orintercalation in a genuinedocument which
The accused, Uy, Gamus and Ochoa, public officers being employed by changes its meaning, and with the use of the saidfalsified
t h e National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), was charged for allegedly diverting andcolle commercialdocuments, accused succeeded in diverting,
cting funds of the National Power Corporation (NPC) intended for collecting and receiving thesaid amount fromNAPOCOR, which
the purchase of US Dollars from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) for the they thereafter malverse, embezzle, misappropriate,
amount of P183, 805,291.25 was indicted before the Sandiganbayan for the andc o n v e r t t o t h e i r o w n p e r s o n a l u s e a n d b e n e f i t t o
complex crime of Malversationthrough Falsification of Com mercial Documents t h e d a m a g e a n d p r e j u d i c e o f t h e NAPOCOR.Gamus, Uy,
for conspiring, confederating with the private co- and Ochoa pleaded not guilty. Gutierrez remained at large.
accused where they falsify or cause to be falsified the NPC’s application for the managers Duringpretrial, it wasfound that Gamus does not have
check with the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Sandigan Bayan rendereda decision a n y c u s t o d y t o p u b l i c f u n d s . H o w e v e r , because of
acquitting Uy, and Ochoa being found guilty for the said crime and is orderedto pay the preponderance of evidence, he is civilly liable for the damages
equal amount malversed solidarily with Uy. Ochoa then appealed, He Issue:Whether petitioner is guilty of malversation of
claimst h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n w a s b a s e d o n t h e a l l e g e d s w o r n s t a t e m e n t a n d public funds.Held: The burden of proof that the subject
t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f stenographic notes of a supposed interview with appellant NPC audit reports contain errors sufficient to merit a re-
personnel and the reportof the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Appellant audit lies with petitioner. What degree of error
maintains that he signed thesworn statement while confined at the Heart suffices, there is no hard and fast rule. WhileCOA
Center and upon assurance it would not Memorandum 87-511 dated October 20, 1987[13](which,
beu s e d a g a i n s t h i m . H e w a s n o t a s s i s t e d b y c o u n s e l n o r w a as reflected in the above-quotedDeputy Ombudsman’s
s h e a p p r i s e d o f h i s constitutional rights when he executed the affidavit. Order of July 28, 1997,[14]was cited by COA Director
Issue: Alquizalas whenh e o p p o s e d p e t i t i o n e r ’ s M o t i o n
Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused were violated? f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d / o r R e i n v e s t i g a t i o n
Held: b e f o r e t h e Ombudsman) recognizes that a re-audit
The decision of the Sandiganbayan is affirmed. Considering that his statement wast a ke n may be conducted in certain instances, it does
d ur i ng t he a d mi ni s t r ati v e i nv e s ti g a ti o n o f N P C ’ s a ud i t t e a m a nd be fo r e he notspecify or cite what those instances are.The auditor
w a s taken into custody. As such inquest was still a general inquiry into an unsolved thus committed no error when she charged to
offense.Appellant cannot claim that he is in police custody because he was confined at the petitioner’s account the shortage inthe collections
time atHeart Center and he gave this statement to NPC personnel, not to police actually done by Bas.Petitioner, nonetheless, could
authorities. Thei n t e r v i e w w h e r e t h e s w o r n s t a t e m e n t i s b a s e d w a s have shown that she was not remiss in her supervision
c o n d u c t e d b y N P C p e r s o n n e l f o r NPC’s administrative investigation. Any of Bas,by way of rebutting the disputable presumption
investigation conducted by the NBI is a separate proceeding, distinct and independent in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code
from the NPC inquiry and should not be confused or lumped together with the latter whichstates:The failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property with whichhe
is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized
PEOPLE vs. TING LAN UY (G.R. NO. 157399)F a c t s : Sometime in officer, shall beprima facieevidencethat he has put
July 1990, accused Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr., a public such missing funds or property to personal
accountable officer,being theTreasurer of National Power use.Petitioner, however, failed to do so. Not only
Corporation (NAPOCOR), and Ernesto Gamus andJaime did she omit to report the shortages of Bas tot h e
Ochoa, bothpublic officers being the Manager of the Loan p r o p e r a u t h o r i t y u p o n h e r d i s c o v e r y t h e r e o f ; s h e
Management and ForeignExchange Division andForeign Trader e v e n p r a c t i c a l l y a d m i t t e d t o h a v i n g assisted Bas in
Analyst, respectively, of NAPOCOR; and accused RaulGutierrez, covering up such shortages
a privateindividual being a foreign exchange trader, falsify or
cause to be falsifiedthe NAPOCOR'sapplication for managers
checks with the Philippine National Bank in the totalamo unt o f
183 805 291.25 pesos, intended for the purchase of US
dollars from the UnitedCoconut PlantersBank, by inserting
the account number of Raul Gutierrez SA-111-121204-4,w h e n